CEDH · CASELAW;CLIN;ENG — 13 mars 2018

.s3ABFC313 { font-size:10pt } .sD4B5322E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; text-align:justify } .sBB9EE52A { font-family:Arial } .sA241FE93 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:18pt; text-align:justify; page-break-after:avoid; border-bottom:0.75pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .s2EF62ED2 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; font-size:12pt } .s4DDA3AA3 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; font-style:italic } .s29100277 { font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold } .s32563E28 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt } .s8F2B0B1B { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:12pt; page-break-after:avoid; font-size:12pt } .s97EB40D9 { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:14pt; page-break-after:avoid } .sA36B60A1 { font-family:Arial; font-style:italic } .s5F48796F { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:justify } .s8B6C6D43 { margin-top:0pt; margin-bottom:0pt; border-bottom:1pt solid #000000; padding-bottom:1pt } .sDF790F1E { margin-top:12pt; margin-bottom:0pt; text-align:center } .s7ED160F0 { text-decoration:none } .s3DC36BA9 { font-family:Arial; text-decoration:underline; color:#0069d6 } Information Note on the Court’s case-law 217 April 2018 Dobrowolski and Others v. Poland (dec.) - 45651/11, 68650/11, 49/12 et al. Decision 13.3.2018 [Section I] Article 14 Discrimination Alleged discriminatory treatment in level of wages paid to prisoners: inadmissible Facts – The applicants were employed while serving prison sentences, receiving a salary equal to half of the statutory minimum wage guaranteed to other employees. The law was amended on 8   March 2011 and the minimum wage of convicted persons was aligned with that of other employees. Nine applicants lodged civil claims against the State on the basis that the Constitutional Court had established the unconstitutionality of the relevant legislation. The applicants sought reimbursement of the difference between full and half the minimum wage for the periods of their employment prior to 8   March 2011. The domestic courts dismissed all actions lodged stating that the salary received by the applicants for their work had been calculated in accordance with the law. In the Convention proceedings, the applicants relied on Article   14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. They complained, inter alia , that the regulation allowing those engaged in work while imprisoned to be paid half of the basic minimum wage system had been discriminatory. Law – Article 14 of the Convention taken in conjunction with Article   1 of Protocol No.   1: The Court observed that the application concerned relations between prisoners carrying out remunerated work and their employers. The applicants’ work was not compulsory and they had been aware of the financial conditions before accepting them. The Court noted that the State regulated the minimum wage of prisoners to not less than half the minimum statutory wage but placed no limit on the maximum amount they could in theory reach. The applicants’ belief that prior to the law changing on 8   March 2011 their pay should have been equal to that of ordinary workers had not been recognised by law or any judicial decision. The Constitutional Court’s judgment declaring the impugned provision unconstitutional did not create an enforceable claim to the full minimum wage as the Constitutional Court expressly postponed its application until 8   March 2011. It was clearly provided that the unconstitutional provision of the domestic law would not lose its binding force until twelve months after the official publication of the judgment. Prior to the judgment and the subsequent amended legislation, the applicant did not have a legitimate expectation which could give rise to an issue under Article   1 of Protocol No.   1 to the Convention. In sum, the applicants had not shown they had a claim which was sufficiently established to be enforceable, and therefore could not argue that they had a “possession” within the meaning of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1. Since Article   14 of the Convention was not autonomous, and since the facts of the cases did not fall within the ambit of Article   1 of Protocol No.   1, Article   14 could not apply in the instant case. Conclusion : inadmissible (incompatible ratione materiae ).   © Council of Europe/European Court of Human Rights This summary by the Registry does not bind the Court. Click here for the Case-Law Information Notes